Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 13 January 1993

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 Approved by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 18 May 1988, EP 121 917/BUR/rev. II.

3 As counsel for Mrs Weber conceded at the hearing, the second head of claim is inadmissible. Article 176 of the EEC Treaty provides that an institution whose act has been declared void is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice. The Court cannot, without exceeding its powers, address orders to the Community institutions regarding the implementation of its judgments (Case 141/84 De Compte v Parliament [1985] ECR 1951, paragraph 22).

4 Case 294/83 Les Verts v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339.

5 Les Verts v European Parliament, paragraph 23.

6 Les Verts v European Parliament, paragraph 23; this passage has been taken up in the judgment in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, at paragraph 16, and the order in Case C-2/88 Zwartfeld [1990] ECR I-3365, at paragraph 16.

7 Les Verts v European Parliament, paragraph 24, in which reference is made to Case 22/70 Commission v Council (the AETR case) [1971] ECR 263, paragraph 42; Case 302/87 Parliament v Council [1988] ECR 5615, paragraph 20. I have used the expression capable of having legal effects used in the case last cited, rather than the words intended to have legal effects used in the Les Verts case so as to void giving the possible impression that whether a measure has legal effects depends on the intention of its originator. Whether a right is created by a measure depends on the nature and scope of the measure considered as a whole.

8 Case 78/85 Group of the European Right v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1753, paragraph 11, and Case C-68/90 Blot and Front National v European Parliament [1990] ECR I-2101, paragraph 12.

9 I have taken those three conditions from the European Parliament's resolution of 9 October 1986 on the position of the European Parliament in the context of actions for annulment brought before the Court of Justice under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty (OJ 1986 C 283, p. 85). For clarity's sake, I have replaced the words internal organization by internal organization of the work, reflecting the wording used in the orders in Group of the European Right v European Parliament and Blot and Front National v European Parliament.

10 There is no disputing that Mrs Weber has locus standi within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty.

11 Judgment in Case 34/86 Council v Parliament [1986] ECR 2155, paragraphs 5 and 6; order in Case 221/86 R Croup of the European Right and National Front Party v European Parliament [1986] ECR 2969, paragraph 19.

12 Case 78/85 Group of the European Right v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1753, paragraph 11, and Case C-68/90 Slot and Front National v European Parliament [1991] ECR I-2101, paragraphs 11 and 12.

13 Judgment in Case 349/85 Denmark v Commission [1988] ECR 169, paragraph 9.

14 Mrs Weber's counsel observed at the hearing that the word Erlöschen is also used in Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and that voluntarily ceasing to serve as an MEP is unambiguously mentioned therein as a form of Erlöschen.

15 Judgment in Moksel v BALM 1988] ECR 3845, paragraph 15.

16 These are excerpts from the minutes of the meetings held by the College of Quaestors held on 21-22 March 1988 and 26 April 1988 and the preliminary draft Rules drawn up in Italian (PE 117.147/QUEST).

17 It appears, however, from those amendments that a transitional allowance is also payable to an MEP who resigns of his own motion, provided that he has served at least three years of his term of office. It is provided that income from a public office in one of the Member States or in a Community institution is to be deducted.

18 It appears from the minutes of the College of Quaestors' meeting of 8 November 1990 that the College recommended that a transitional allowance should be paid to MEPs voluntarily giving up their seats. It seems that the Bureau's decision of 12 December 1990 contemplated that case in referring to individual consideration.

19 Judgment in Case 325/85 Ireland v Commission [1987] ECR 5041. Paragraph 18 of that judgment reads as follows: Moreover, as the Court has repeatedneld, Community legislation must be certain and its application foreseeable by those subject to it. That requirement of legal certainty must be observed all the more strictly in the case of rules liable to entail financial consequences, in order that those concerned may know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them.